1. E ASY C HAIR R EVIEW, META - REVIEW AND COMMENTS G ILBERTO B ARDALES A ARON D ONK A MMAR T AKI E L -D IN V ATSAL S HAH

2. R ECAP & P ROTOTYPE Recap Problems with excessive wordage Presence of technical terminology Lengthy form-fills Availability and absence of functionality Prototype http://rdeezy.com/EasyChair/

3. S UBJECT F INDINGS - M AIN P AGE Not consistent with display Centered and left justified stuff doesn’t go well together Confused between selection of radiobuttons or clicking links Confused as to what the buttons refer to and where they apply Lack of title wasn’t appreciated (for Revise and Edit Metareview section)

4. S UBJECT F INDINGS - A DD R EVIEW /R EVISE R EVIEW Enjoyed scrolling dialog Those familiar with similar websites recommended sticking with "-3 to 3" ranking scheme Too much white space Center alignment disorienting in "add review" process Another person reviewing statement is not unambiguous (physically or as a requested subreview?) Scoring titles weren’t explanatory

5. S UBJECT F INDINGS - R EQUEST R EVIEW Liked the auto-fill in the request review process Didn't like the need to fill out more info in the textbox such as due date Preferred to have a small template as to what to write in the text-box. o However, didn't like the text to be part of the text-box, but liked the idea of a template

6. S UBJECT F INDINGS - A DD C OMMENT Difficult to understand what commenting was for in the "add comment" process Suggested having comment form-fill after the abstract Would have liked the abstract to be shown in more places. Wanted the author info to be with the other info about paper; less disconnect

7. S UBJECT F INDINGS - S HOW R EVIEWS The "Add Comment" section of this page is located on the very bottom of the page. Users would often scroll half way down and not all the way to the bottom. There is no indication on the top of the page that the "Add Comment" section exists. Liked the grey out effect and color effect for sub-revisions Preferred to have it ordered by name and not date=

8. S UBJECT F INDINGS - M ETA R EVIEWS There is no easy way for a user to see the reviews that they are writing a meta review on User's expected to be able to write a meta review from the show reviews page Would have liked preview of review along with each review rather than entire reviews list or just links either Wanted a scale for accept and reject o not so black and white o a Maybe option if possible

9. C HANGES S INCE O UR L AST P RESENTATION All "submit" buttons point to the "myPapers" portion of the website Addition of alerts when "submit" is clicked to show confirmation Made formatting changes to "add review" page Edited "revise review" page to reflect changes in "add review" page Added summary of review table to "meta review" page Links in summary of review table on "meta review" page open in a new tab

10. F INAL C HANGES Changed layout on main page and "add review" page to be on the left Set scale from 1-5, 5 being excellent Overall Ranking scale set back to "-3 to 3" "Revise review" now has a form-fill for why the review was revised Added a button for add "meta review" on the "show reviews" page Added a jump link on "show reviews" page to get to "add comment" Added a jump link on bottom of "add review" to get to top because it is a long page

11. U PDATED T IMELINE All Users Studies finished on time Prototype updated according to user study results Just need to polish up the documentation

12. R ISK A NALYSIS Rescheduling of subjects Time conflicts between subjects and teammates due to class- time restrictions Subjects leaving in between due to other commitments, boredom, etc. Subjects refusing to do a post-study interview User needs are higher than technological capabilities allowed for the modification of the website Conflicting user opinions lead to stagnant progress as prototype cannot accommodate conflicting changes End result may end up being similar to original website if users find no problems with it

13. T HANK Y OU ! Q UESTIONS ?